Cited by

See Williams v. State , , 740 (2018) (noting that questions of law, including the interpretation of rules of procedure and "[d]etermining which party has the burden of proof," are reviewed de novo); State v. Obeta , , 288 (Minn. 2011) ("The question of whether to overrule precedent is a legal one that is subject to de novo review."); State v. Lewis , , 537 (Minn. 2003) ("We review de novo the question whether and to what extent our precedent should be given retroactive effect.").

702, “expert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testi mony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye- Mack standard.” (citing Minn. R. Evid.

State v. Obeta , , 286 (Minn. 2011).

9 Appellant argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s permit expert-opinion testimony “on typical characteristics of and behaviors of certain witnesses” as helpful to the jury.

A witness may testify to nonscientific information, like the abuse-reporting tendencies discussed by the s tate’s witness here, if “(1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; [and] (3) the expert testimony is helpful.” (describing Minn. R. Evid.

Under rule 702, “expert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational relia bility; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye- Mack standard.” State v. Obeta

“ [E]xpert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualifi ed as an expert; (2) the expert’ s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye-Mack standard.” State v. Obeta , (citing Minn. R. Evid.

702; (articulating this standard).

estify regarding information that “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Under rule 702, expert testimony regarding nonscientific information “is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; [and] (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the [trier of fact].”

(concluding “that expert testimony about counterintuitive behaviors of child- or adolescent-victims of sexual assault could aid jurors in their fact-finding”); (“[I]n cases where a sexual assault victim is an adolescent, [general] expert testimony as

when the State seeks to rehabilitate the credibility of a battered woman in the prosecution of her batterer,” id., by “educat[ing] jurors about battered woman syndrome (BWS) and counterintuitive behaviors commonly associated with BWS,” d 282, 291 (Minn. 2011).

(“It is within the trial court’s discretion to admit expert testimony concerning the behavioral characteristics typically displayed by adolescent sexual assault victims.”); (“It is within trial court’s discretion to admit expert testimony concerning the reporting practices of adolescent victims of sexual assault.”); ( holding that, when defendant argues sexual conduct was consensual, “the district court has discretion to admit expert-opinion evidence on the typicality of delayed reporting .

when the State seeks to rehabilitate the credibility of a battered woman in the prosecution of her batterer,” id., by “educat[ing] jurors about battered woman syndrome (BWS) and counterintuitive behaviors commonly associated with BWS,”

d 282, 294 (Minn. 2011); see Minn. R. Evid.

It is true that “we have the inherent judicial authority to regulate and supervise the rules that govern the admission of evidence in the lower courts.” ().

rier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” 4 Under rule 702, expert testimony that does not involve a novel scientific theory “is admissible if (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; [and] (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury.” (holding that expert testimony about rape myths and counterintuitive rape-victim behaviors was admissible to assist the jury in evaluating evidence of delayed reporting, l

On appeal, appellant argues that workplace bullying is similar to battered-woman syndrome, rape-victim behavior and post- traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD).13 (holding that the “district court has discretion to admit expert-opinion evidence” concerning the “typicality of delayed reporting, lack of physical injuries, and submissive conduct by sexual-assault victims”).

“[E]xpert testimony is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye-Mack standard.”

experts to testify regarding information that “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Under rule 702, expert testimony regarding nonscientific information “is admissible if: (1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert’s opinion has foundational reliability; [and] (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury.”

DECISION “In order for an appellate court to review a pretrial order, the State must show that the district court’s ruling will have a critical impact on its case.”

supported by probable cause.” 2 “Probable cause to arrest exists when a person of ordinary care and prudence, viewing the totality of circumstances objectively, would 1 “In order for an appellate court to review a pretrial order, the State must show that the district court’s ruling will have a critical impact on its case.”

That rule permits admission of expert testimony if: “(1) the witness is qualified as an expert; (2) the expert's opinion has foundational reliability; (3) the expert testimony is helpful to the jury; and (4) if the testimony involves a novel scientific theory, it must satisfy the Frye- Mack standard.”

“If the jury is in as good a position to reach a decision as the expert, expert testimony would be of little assistance to the jury and should not be admitted.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION “In order for an appellate court to review a pretrial order, the State must show that the district court’s ruling will have a critical impact on its case.”